At least I’m clever enough to tell the difference between a spelling mistake and a typo 
[quote]Bu Lai En wrote:
What this gets down to is that IQ tests do not test intelligence, but your ability to do that kind of test. As Hakkasonic says, certain cultures and classes have more practice with this sort of thing than others. That doesn’t mean they’re more intelligent.
Asserting that certain classes and groups have more practice with that kind of test is not the same thing as it being true. Do you have some data to back this vain hope up?
[/quote]
You should realise that certain things are so obvious as to not need proof. Just in case you are unable of thinking of an example yourself, compare peasants in Asia who spend all day farming rice, with little leisure time, to middle-class Englishmen who like nothing better than sitting down to a crossword over a cup of tea. Who is likely to be better at the type of puzzles found in intelligence tests?
Brian
Since Asians from countries with large numbers of peasants are often the groups that score highest on I.Q. tests, your point makes no sense.
Here is a selection of I.Q. averages taken from East Asian nations filled with peasants compared with those of nations filled with overweight white men who love to do crossword puzzles.
North Korea – 104
China – 100
Mongolia – 98
Vietnam – 96
Germany – 102
Australia – 98
United States – 98
Finland – 97
And this doesn’t even compare those East Asian nations that are nominally modern today, but still not that distantly separated from their peasant roots:
Hong Kong – 107
South Korea – 106
Taiwan – 104
Singapore – 103
Some people have this idea of I.Q. tests as glorifying whites, but white European Christians do not score the highest on the tests. Jews and East Asians do.
When Mongolia is scoring as high as the United States and Vietnam is just a shade less than Finland, I think it’s safe to say that crossword puzzles aren’t the key to I.Q. tests.
The stats, by the way, are taken from IQ and the Wealth of Nations by Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen.
Looking forward to your explanation Coldfront. Where are you going here?
You of all people trust tests presumably from North Korea? I grant you they are not particularly flattering. Australia 98? Do you mean the indigineous people? They’re hardly rice ploughing folk. In fact if that is who you mean there are damed fine reasons for that which reach straight back to Bu Lai’s spin.
HG
Where do you get any idea that CF is even talking about the Aborigines? I see this thread sliding into a flame war…
The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life has a certain focus that its subtitle reveals – how I.Q. correlates with socio-economic status in the U.S. While the authors of the book, Murray and Herrnstein, cite literally hundreds of studies on I.Q., and provide at least some evidence for every concept they introduce, their scope is necessarily narrowed by their thesis. They are only seeking to prove that Americans are becoming more segregated by I.Q. in the workplace. It was the critics of the book that sought to highlight Murray and Herrnstein’s findings on ethnicity and I.Q. That was simply a small part of the book.
I’ve read many intelligent critiques of The Bell Curve, but I don’t recall any criticisms that the authors did not take into account the effects of adult training for tests. There seems to be a good deal of consensus among the experts that the benefits of such training are minimal. For every person who raises their score by a significant margin after extensive training, there are some who don’t raise their score at all and even an unlucky few who score slightly lower.
Maybe the critics aren’t very smart. Where did they end up in terms of IQ? Near the bottom?
I find this hard to accept. Once you figure out that you fill in the blank in the sequence by adding the last two numbers together, you’ve crossed a threshhold. To me, it’s like riding a bicycle. True, if you don’t ride it for a number of years, it’s wobbly when you get back on, but the skills exists in the person nonetheless. Yes, I know, I can’t prove I’m right, but damn it, I wish someone would! I think a study on adults would narrow the IQ gap between the classes as those scoring lowest on the tests would have the potential for the biggest gains.
What does The Bell Curve and books in response to it say about how IQ tests are written, that is, the argument that IQ tests are slanted toward a certain class / cultures and that this accounts for part, if not all, the differences in income levels?
I’m not going anywhere. Most of my remarks here are either explanations, commentary, or responses to other people’s posts.
I didn’t introduce the subject when it first appeared in another thread. I didn’t create this thread. I’ve simply reacted to other people’s posts based on what I know.
I am much more agnostic about this subject than it may appear. Most of the time, I’ve been discussing this issue, I’ve simply been defending Murray and Herrnstein from the worst charges against them – racism and shoddy scholarship. They are neither racists nor shoddy scholars. I’ve also felt compelled to defend myself and, more to my surprise, science in general. But while I believe intelligence and heritability is a subject worthy of scientific study, and that some basic ideas we have about I.Q. are probably accurate, I’m not sure that we have a solid handle on the subject. This comes through in The Bell Curve if the book is read closely. Murray and Herrnstein raised more questions for me than they provided answers.
North Korea might be a problem. The book I cited (IQ and the Wealth of Nations) has an appendix with most of the countries of the world, detailing when and how the I.Q. studies were performed and making adjustments to them based on the Flynn Effect. But I just looked up North Korea and it is not in the appendix, so I have no idea how they arrived at North Korea’s number.
No, the Aussies measured are not the aborigines, but the fat white men and women who like to do crossword puzzles. Aborigines are simply too small a segment of Australia’s population to make much of a difference in the average. The I.Q. tests were given to several thousand Australian children at three different periods (1938, 1995, and 1996) and an average was taken from the three scores (97, 98, 99 = 98)
Maybe the critics aren’t very smart. Where did they end up in terms of IQ? Near the bottom?[/quote]
Actually, it was probably just a matter of priorities. If you only have the length of a book review to deal with The Bell Curve, which is essentially all except the most dedicated of critics had, then you pick the book’s main points and write about those. In the case of The Bell Curve, many critics avoided the book’s main points altogether and dealt exclusively with the race issue instead.
Do you remember everything you learned in secondary school? I sure as hell don’t. I’ve been shocked to come across some long essays I wrote in college about subjects I can’t even remember even learning about, let alone writing about.
The example you gave from the I.Q. test is an easy one to remember, and I found it one of the easier questions to get right the first time I took the test, so I don’t know that the question is indicative of how I would handle or view other questions, especially those I habitually get wrong.
Except in the case of how I.Q. correlates to income and other related questions, The Bell Curve is merely an introduction to the subject of I.Q. I could look up its notes to see where they get their information on test taking; I’m sure it’s in there.
I once scored 160.
Bossman, we’re talking about IQ, not darts.
Bossman, we’re talking about IQ, not darts.[/quote] 
Rubbish. The Bell Curve is a piece of crap. Murray and Herrnstein are both racist and guilty of shoddy scholarship. CF, if you really have read a lot about this topic then you are being deceptive to claim otherwise. If anyone else wants to see for themselves, just do a google search on “The Bell Curve”. The first 10 non-sales related links will be convincing and damning critiques oft he book and it’s authors. We’re talking about such things as lack of peer-review, authors previously unpublished in the field, citations of obvious falsified studies, research drawn, from facist organisations, twsiting conclusions and speculation passed off as evidence. Don’t believe me? Do the search.
(Mod, feel free to split these posts and move to Open Forum)
Brian
Rubbish. The Bell Curve is a piece of crap. Murray and Herrnstein are both racist and guilty of shoddy scholarship. CF, if you really have read a lot about this topic then you are being deceptive to claim otherwise. If anyone else wants to see for themselves, just do a google search on “The Bell Curve”. The first 10 non-sales related links will be convincing and damning critiques oft he book and it’s authors. We’re talking about such things as lack of peer-review, authors previously unpublished in the field, citations of obvious falsified studies, research drawn, from facist organisations, twsiting conclusions and speculation passed off as evidence. Don’t believe me? Do the search.[/quote]
Dear Internet Detective,
A google search is not the same as going over a couple of peer-reviewed articles (which I have already provided). I’m happy you are such a free spirit and bright intellect that, along with your creative approach to English orthography, you can glean the substance of a rigorously researched academic field by just a few clicks on your Internet Explorer. As crazy as it seems, however, others of us might still entertain some doubts that the effectiveness of your method.
Yours truly, the Reactionary Racist.
P.S. – I’m wondering if we can get back to your comments on how whites playing crossword puzzles are better prepared for I.Q. tests than, say, your average yak-milking Mongolian.
Rubbish. The Bell Curve is a piece of crap. Murray and Herrnstein are both racist and guilty of shoddy scholarship. CF, if you really have read a lot about this topic then you are being deceptive to claim otherwise. If anyone else wants to see for themselves, just do a google search on “The Bell Curve”. The first 10 non-sales related links will be convincing and damning critiques oft he book and it’s authors. We’re talking about such things as lack of peer-review, authors previously unpublished in the field, citations of obvious falsified studies, research drawn, from facist organisations, twsiting conclusions and speculation passed off as evidence. Don’t believe me? Do the search.
(Mod, feel free to split these posts and move to Open Forum)
Brian[/quote]
We’ve already got lots of people on the forum ready and eager to label anyone they disagree with as a “bleeding heart liberal,” etc. and now we have Bu jumping on the bandwagon with his own labels. “Reactionary,” racist," etc. But he can back it all up! Do a google search, says Bu. I’m getting the idea, based on the quality of Bu’s posts, that he don’t like IQ tests because he don’t do so well on them.
Proof that IQs are not a measure to be taken seriously. Six years ago, I scored 155 on a Mensa test. On the second test (they ask that one sit two tests) my score was a 134. My combined score was 144. Top 5 percentile but not in the top 2%, as required for membership.
What a dolt! Jez, do you have to wear a note on your shirt that says, “My name is Alleycat. I live at xxx. If you find me, please take me home because I am lost.”
A reptile is smarter than that; a bag of ground up jellyfish is more useful than you.
With a statistically insignificant score like that, with a brain that eludes detection by an electron microscope, with most of your mind concentrating all it can do to keep your automonic nerves firing…it is a wonder that you haven’t been elevated to GRAND IMPERIAL ADMINISTRATOR OF FORUMOSA.
Cold Front and Hakkasonic, what are you on about? I said earlier that I’ve read a lot of (peer-reviewed) articles debunking The Bell Curve. I can’t give you those articles. They’re not on the net. You have to pay to access most of that stuff. So I did a Google search for stuff that I could show anyone who’s interested. The first ten articles (apart from sales-related stuff) were all good solid pieces critiquing The Bell Curve. Rather than cut and paste ten links, I suggested that anyone could find these themselves, and thus also realise that I wasn’t just picking and choosing things favourable to my argument and ignoring the other side.
Hakkasonic, your post doesn’t seem to have much to do with the post of mine you quoted. I didn’t call anyone reactinoary in it. I called Murray and Hernstein racist. My dictionary defines racism as “belief that human abilities, etc depend on race and that some races are superior to others”. You know what The Bell Curve is about right? Maybe you were referring to my calling CF reactionary and racist in an earlier post. Well maybe I was wrong with the reactionary (although I see society as progressing towards a more enlightened attitude towards ‘race’ and CF’s beliefs seem to be ‘reactionary’ when compared to this trend - but that is arguable), but in supporting the Bell Curve, CF is, by definition, racist.
I did OK on IQ tests if you must know. I was very curious about them when I was young and had a book of IQ tests. I got 134 on the first one and my score went up as I did more. Practice helps you get better.
I still think it’s obvious. Anyone who’s done an IQ test should realise that an illiterate (becasue they’ve never had the opportunity to be taught) peasant with no exposure to a mathematical education is not going to do as well at an IQ test (which usually has a lot of mathematical and word puzzles) as someone who, for example, likes doing crossword puzzles.
Brian
The problem is that you can’t even form a coherent argument that shows any evidence of what you claim. You have no names of the authors of peer-reviewed articles you say you read. The only argument you have put forward is a ridiculous post-modernist one that says science can prove anything scientists want it to prove. I can tell you right now that you won’t read that kind of shit from any respectable science magazine.
You’re full of shit. You wrote “[t]he first 10 non-sales related links will be convincing and damning critiques of the book and it’s authors.” I just did what you asked me and the first review that popped into my screen was by Thomas Bouchard, a psychologist at the University of Minnesota; here’s what his review said:
The Bell Curve has a simple but powerful thesis: There are substantial individual and group differences in intelligence; these differences profoundly influence the social structure and organization of work in modern industrial societies, and they defy easy remediation. In the current political milieu, this book’s message is not merely controversial, it is incendiary. As scholars such as Daniel Moynihan, Arthur Jensen, and E. O. Wilson have learned, the mainstream media and much of the scientific community have little tolerance for those who would question our most cherished beliefs. Herrnstein and Murray have received similar treatment. They have been cast as racists and elitists, and The Bell Curve has been dismissed as pseudoscience, ironically by some commentators who broadly proclaim that their critique has not benefited from a reading of the book. The book’s message cannot be dismissed so easily. Herrnstein and Murray have written one of the most provocative social science books published in many years. The issues raised are likely to be debated by academics and policymakers for years to come…So even your very own silly prescription for judging the quality of The Bell Curve fails to support your point. The very first review that came up in my google of “The Bell Curve” was supportive of its effort, not dismissive. There were other supportive reviews in the first ten clicks. So are you a liar or just incompetent?The Bell Curve carefully documents in table after table, graph after graph that cognitive ability has become a more important determinant of social status than social class of origin. Although this may come as a surprise to many, it is consistent with a large body of evidence. Research methodology in the domain of individual differences has changed dramatically in the past 20 years. Many investigators in this domain now accept two major methodological principles: that single studies based on small samples are inherently uninformative and that correlations calculated from data gathered within biological families are seriously confounded. Understanding both of these principles is important when evaluating evidence often brought to bear against The Bell Curve…
Part III of The Bell Curve contains the most controversial chapter in the book, “Ethnic Differences in Cognitive Ability.” The data reviewed here are neither new nor surprising and find strong support in the current psychological literature (Humphreys, 1988). East Asians, living in Asia or America, score above White Americans in tests of cognitive ability; the best estimate of that difference is about three points with findings ranging from no difference to a 10-point spread in test scores. The difference in measured IQ between African Americans and Whites has remained at about 15 IQ points for decades, although there is some indication of very modest convergence due to fewer low scores in the African American population. Controlling for SES reduces but does not eliminate this difference, and of course, controlling for SES in ethnic group contrasts may eliminate a valid source of IQ variance. Moreover, ethnic differences on cognitive tests cannot be attributed to test bias.…
This is a superbly written and exceedingly well-documented book. It raises many troubling questions regarding the organization of our society. It deserves the attention of every well-informed and thoughtful citizen.
Call me what you like. When you first called me a racist and a reactionary, I became angry because I mistakenly thought you might be someone whose opinion I might care about. Now that I know you’re an idiot, I could care less what you think of me.
To my knowledge, peasants aren’t tested with any regularity. Students with roughly the same education levels are, however. And as anyone who has ever looked at this subject knows, the East Asian students with peasant backgrounds either outscore or are level with Whites from developed countries. Meanwhile, those East Asian students who had the good fortune to live in one of the more developed countries in Asia consistently outscore Whites by a healthy margin.